I don't see "Obama" anywhere on the poll options. :2razz:
People think over population is a greater threat to THE PLANET than the death of the sun? What da ****?
And the tiny blue dot that humans find so big and important will be gone, and who will know or care?
I'm assuming the poll means "more immediate threat." The heat death of the sun isn't coming for a few billion years.
As you know, I am too exact of a thinker to do anything as foolish as to "assume".
When you assume, you make an ass out of Uma Thurman
I wikipedia'd her and found out that her personal relationships are a mess... she made herself an ass.
But as long as Quentin Tarantino is making movies, she'll always have a job.
Pretty much... "pick up the phone Lance!" "are you talking on a cell phone? Who is this... crank caller crank caller!!"
People think over population is a greater threat to THE PLANET than the death of the sun? What da ****?
Me thinks people do not realize exactly the vastness the planet's land mass .. Every person on the planet will fit within the U.S. State of Texas and own 1000-1200 sq. ft.
Have a great day Bodhi
Thom Paine
I can see why you'd say so, but IMO a population that remained steady at a sustainable level would be a better indicator of success.
Me thinks people do not realize exactly the vastness the planet's land mass .. Every person on the planet will fit within the U.S. State of Texas and own 1000-1200 sq. ft.
Have a great day Bodhi
Thom Paine
and what would all those Texans eat?
I can see why you'd say so, but IMO a population that remained steady at a sustainable level would be a better indicator of success.
Well, it's a success in the sense that we've overcome the natural dangers and limitations of our environment. I agree, it's not as healthy in the long run for our species or the planet, if we don't find some eco-friendly equilibrium. It seems the technological intelligence of our brain has developed much faster than our emotional reasoning, or we'd easily see this problem and moves towards a fix.
Eh. The way I see it, you can either have stability, or you can have progress. Of the two, I'd much rather have progress. :shrug:
Would you consider a hunter-gatherer tribe which has maintained a "stable" population of twenty persons or less for the last ten thousand years - while never advancing above a stone age level technology in that entire length of time - to be "successful?"
In a sense, I suppose you could. However, I wouldn't say that they can hold a candle to what the rest of the world has accomplished in that same period of time.
Likewise, would you consider humanity to have been "successful" if it managed to attain "ecological equilibrium" at a 21st century level of technology, but never took the next step beyond that necessary to become a Type II or Type III civilization on the Kardashev Scale? Would you consider such a version of humanity to be more "successful" than one which had depleted the Earth's resources, but found the motivation to become a truly space faring race in doing so?
The Earth is nice. Don't get me wrong. However, it's hardly sacrosanct. It is ultimately a resource to be utilized like any other.
As I already noted with regard to the super volcanoes mentioned earlier in this thread, there is also a very nearly 100% chance that it will wind up being the death of us sooner or later if we do not take proactive measures to ensure the survival of our species.
No. I think I actually have to take the opposite stance of the environuts here. The sooner we liberate ourselves from the confines of this planet, the better.
If that causes pain, discomfort, and destruction along the way, so be it. Nothing worth doing is free of cost.
There can't be much progress without some level of stability.
And the purpose of trying to reach some sort of "ecological equilibrium" is not to save the beauty of the natural system, but rather to not let it destroy us, before we can completely control its effects on us.
Type II or Type III civilizations are just a relative scale, not exact science or even high probabilities. What may actually be possible or evolve out of today's civilization could be something of a mix or redux of the past.
If we don't eventually have an off world presence to some sustainable level, it's only a matter of time before some cataclysm wipes us out, super volcano, asteroid, solar event, etc.
I'm not a fan of "tree hugging" bananas either. My only purpose for not unbalancing nature too much is for our survival.